Abstract

BackgroundThere is uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of early intensive treatment versus routine care in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening. ObjectivesTo derive a trial-informed estimate of the incremental costs of intensive treatment as delivered in the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Europe (ADDITION) trial and to revisit the long-term cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. MethodsWe analyzed the electronic primary care records of a subsample of the ADDITION-Cambridge trial cohort (n = 173). Unit costs of used primary care services were taken from the published literature. Incremental annual costs of intensive treatment versus routine care in years 1 to 5 after diagnosis were calculated using multilevel generalized linear models. We revisited the long-term cost-utility analyses for the ADDITION-UK trial cohort and reported results for ADDITION-Cambridge using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model and the trial-informed cost estimates according to a previously developed evaluation framework. ResultsIncremental annual costs of intensive treatment over years 1 to 5 averaged £29.10 (standard error = £33.00) for consultations with general practitioners and nurses and £54.60 (standard error = £28.50) for metabolic and cardioprotective medication. For ADDITION-UK, over the 10-, 20-, and 30-year time horizon, adjusted incremental quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were 0.014, 0.043, and 0.048, and adjusted incremental costs were £1,021, £1,217, and £1,311, resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £71,232/QALY, £28,444/QALY, and £27,549/QALY, respectively. Respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for ADDITION-Cambridge were slightly higher. ConclusionsThe incremental costs of intensive treatment as delivered in the ADDITION-Cambridge trial were lower than expected. Given UK willingness-to-pay thresholds in patients with screen-detected diabetes, intensive treatment is of borderline cost effectiveness over a time horizon of 20 years and more.

Highlights

  • Diabetes mellitus is an increasing public health problem, associated with costly micro- and macrovascular complications, reduced quality of life, and premature death [1,2,3,4]

  • The ADDITION-UK (NCT00237549) study was a part of the ADDITION-Europe study and consisted of two phases—a screening program and a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial comparing the effect of early intensive treatment with that of routine care in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening on a composite end point of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality [13,14]

  • High-risk individuals without known diabetes aged 40 to 69 years registered in 69 primary care surgeries within a range of 100 miles of the study centers in Cambridge and Leicester were invited for stepwise screening

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Diabetes mellitus is an increasing public health problem, associated with costly micro- and macrovascular complications, reduced quality of life, and premature death [1,2,3,4]. Cost-effective disease management strategies are needed to diminish the burden of the disease on patients and health care systems. There is uncertainty about the cost effectiveness of early intensive treatment versus routine care in individuals with type 2 diabetes detected by screening. Objectives: To derive a trialinformed estimate of the incremental costs of intensive treatment as delivered in the Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment in People with Screen-Detected Diabetes in Primary Care-Europe (ADDITION) trial and to revisit the long-term cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Incremental annual costs of intensive treatment versus routine care in years 1 to 5 after diagnosis were calculated using multilevel generalized linear models. Given UK willingness-to-pay thresholds in patients with screen-detected diabetes, intensive treatment is of borderline cost effectiveness over a time horizon of 20 years and more.

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call